Once you get to AMD’s brand-new Ryzen 3000 chips, the megahertz/buck race is closer than we expected. But AMD has its own compelling message for why you might want to skip Intel this time.ĪMD takes the prize for megahertz value as well, but remember that’s based on the older CPUs. Based purely on clock speeds, Intel still has a compelling argument for why you might want to buy one. For tasks that need more threads, such as 3D rendering or video encoding, that’s real performance likely lost. Intel’s CPUs still offer decent clock rates at OK prices, but you do give up Hyper-Threading. With this metric you also have to think really hard about how you use your computer. the Ryzen 5 2600X, we’d probably go with the newer Ryinstead. With just a $20 difference to get AMD’s leading-edge 7nm process vs. The Ryis a low-wattage part, but it’s actually rated to hit the same 4.2GHz as the higher-wattage Ryzen 5 2600X. We’d like to point out that if you look at the third-best value per clock, it highlights an overall weakness with trying to judge the chips on megahertz alone. The winners again, however, are AMD, specifically the older Ryand 2600X parts. If you look closely at cents per megahertz, you finally see Intel’s chips at least come into contention. the boost clock of the CPUs to find out which chip gives you the best dollar per boast megahertz. IDGĭoes AMD or Intel offer more value per clock? To find out, we calculated the street price vs. We opted not to include AMD’s Precision Boost score, because that’s highly dependent on conditions, and instead stuck with the company’s stated top boost clock. To do that, we use each CPU’s stated Turbo Boost or Boost clock speed. We used an integrated AMD 780G motherboard as well as an Intel board based on the latest G45 chipset for this article, as well as two representative AMD processors, two Intel dual-cores chips, and two Intel low-power quad core CPUs.Still, it’s interesting to see which of the CPUs gives you the best bang for the megahertz. Especially if you look at all-in-one integrated chipsets such as the AMD 780G, AMD has offered much better 3D performance and power efficiency than Intel chipsets. So there is the platform, which contributes to power consumption.
Core i7 has started to introduce a paradigm change in this direction with Intel, but that doesn’t apply to Core 2. Second, AMD processors have come with integrated memory controllers since the introduction of the Athlon 64 in late 2003, which typically provides a power consumption advantage over logic that is part of the Intel chipset. This makes it very much competitive with Intel’s manufacturing, which has typically been 12-18 months ahead of AMD with regards to transistor size (note that AMD processor manufacturing is being outsourced). First there is the SOI manufacturing process (at 90, 65, and 45 nm), which ensures low power requirements in idle mode thanks to low leakage power. On the CPU side, AMD has traditionally had two advantages over Intel. We decided to stay with Watt-hours (Wh), as this is the way we are charged for electricity. One joule equals one watt-second, so a watt-hour equals 1 x 60 x 60 = 3,600 joules. Some readers had noted that work energy should be stated in joules. In this case, power is measured in Watt-hours (this isn’t watts per hour, but watts times hours). We define efficiency as the power that is required to complete a specific workload.
0 kommentar(er)
